Dolomiti wrote:Guess what? Property values in DTJC haven't dropped yet. They might not drop at all. As pointed out so many times, supply in DTJC is extremely tight, and demand is very high. Don't hold your breath expecting a huge property tax break in any follow-up revals.

Funny, I was just chatting with a realtor who was saying the single family market is very soft right now. I have a Zillow alert that updates me about listings in the neighborhood, and I watch them post high, then drop. A neighbor's asking dropped from $1.3m FSBO to $1m by a broker.

Yes because when the rest of state funds most of JC's education budget, you morons don't realize that the more you cry about your absurdly low tax rate, the more the state is going to look at it and say "heeeeey wait a minute, why are we still paying for their shitty schools?" It can only go up from here so enjoy the relatively free ride while it lasts. The tax rate, under that circumstance, will continue to be discussed as nauseum until you people get it and STFU about your taxes going up from the reval.

thor800 wrote:The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Yes it was way overdue and definitely not fair for residents in other words to overpay for years, but also not fair to saddle downtown with absurdly high taxes with no clear plan to reassess more regularly in the future.

They're not "absurdly high taxes"; they're exactly the taxes one should pay for a residence in a particular market. Also, at a rate of 1.62% is still one of the lowest tax RATES in the entire state. Try paying 2.3% or whatever the state average is, on these valuations, then I'd say whoa. But again, there are options: reverse mortgages, the senior freeze, etc.

Are you still going to bang the drum on tax rates? It has been discussed at nauseam. They mean nothing! Here it is again. A town with high market values has a low tax rate. A town with depressed values has a high tax rate! Just imagine if the reval was done 8 years ago. The rate would have been over 2%.

thor800 wrote:The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Guess what? Property values in DTJC haven't dropped yet. They might not drop at all. As pointed out so many times, supply in DTJC is extremely tight, and demand is very high. Don't hold your breath expecting a huge property tax break in any follow-up revals.

Saradove wrote:Parkman, I'm with you. I have an 82 year old friend who, with his wife, bought a home in 1968, raised their kids & became a beloved neighbor to many. The house never had a major updating, it was their home with no thought to it becoming a goldmine. He doesn't want to sell ... it's his home, his neighborhood. A home is an emotional thing, sentimental, not always a money-maker as some see it. I realize that this doesn't mesh with today's reality but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

Way to go Sara. That sounds like Jersey City heart you're speaking with; something that seems to be in short supply amongst the money changers on this forum. It's about home not bucks all the time.

Except that feel good sentiments like this don't exist in the real world. Again, and again, and again...every day that poor senior downtown, sitting on a million dollar plus valuation, is delaying their FAIR increase, actual poorer folks are over paying (I'm generalizing - yes, not everyone getting a decrease is poor. It's a relative point). Can you really sit there and tell me that someone who can sell their place today for over a million bucks NET should get an extension over the person in Greenville or BL who lives paycheck to paycheck barely making ends meet? Because I can guarantee you there are more of the latter than the former. And the reval will provide relief to far more people than will be hurt by it. That's a fact.

It's easy to say it's not about the bucks when you've been getting a deep discount on the backs of so many for so long. Funny how a largely democrat population, sanctuary city and all that nonsense, recoils when it's time to pay their FAIR share (spare me. I know not every person affected is a democrat. And no I'm not a republican).

Saradove wrote:Parkman, I'm with you. I have an 82 year old friend who, with his wife, bought a home in 1968, raised their kids & became a beloved neighbor to many. The house never had a major updating, it was their home with no thought to it becoming a goldmine. He doesn't want to sell ... it's his home, his neighborhood. A home is an emotional thing, sentimental, not always a money-maker as some see it. I realize that this doesn't mesh with today's reality but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

Way to go Sara. That sounds like Jersey City heart you're speaking with; something that seems to be in short supply amongst the money changers on this forum. It's about home not bucks all the time.

thor800 wrote:The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Yes it was way overdue and definitely not fair for residents in other words to overpay for years, but also not fair to saddle downtown with absurdly high taxes with no clear plan to reassess more regularly in the future.

A couple of thoughts:- if values are to drop because of a tax increase, wouldn't the same be true regardless of whether this is a high or low market?

- there IS guidance in place: a revaluation is legally mandated every 10 years. The citizenship should demand that is followed.

- Downtown is not being saddled with absurdly high taxes: they are being assessed the proper taxes, and they only seem high now because they were undertaxed for so long.

- agreed, there is no clear plan to reassess regularly, but there is a law that dictates that to be the case. Citizens can and should demand that future city administrations stick to the law.

- if DTJC loses value, whatever properties come on the market will likely be snapped up by other people. Local inventory is extremely low, although we are definitely seeing more properties being listed, presumably from homeowners who can't, or refuse to, pay the new taxes.

- one final thought: if a market correction takes place, areas outside of DTJC will suffer a much bigger impact. It is always that way. Areas like BeLa were experiencing good progress and gentrifying nicely when the market tanked in 2007/2008. It took over 7 years before it started to regain its footing, and valuation recovering to pre-recession levels. As such, DTJC will continue to retain its value vis-a-vis non-DTJC areas, so taxes wouldn't need to be adjusted.

thor800 wrote:The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Yes it was way overdue and definitely not fair for residents in other words to overpay for years, but also not fair to saddle downtown with absurdly high taxes with no clear plan to reassess more regularly in the future.

They're not "absurdly high taxes"; they're exactly the taxes one should pay for a residence in a particular market. Also, at a rate of 1.62% is still one of the lowest tax RATES in the entire state. Try paying 2.3% or whatever the state average is, on these valuations, then I'd say whoa. But again, there are options: reverse mortgages, the senior freeze, etc.

those are only options if you are a senior 62 or older.

again - youre missing the point about not making any allowances for resulting market impacts

thor800 wrote:The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Yes it was way overdue and definitely not fair for residents in other words to overpay for years, but also not fair to saddle downtown with absurdly high taxes with no clear plan to reassess more regularly in the future.

They're not "absurdly high taxes"; they're exactly the taxes one should pay for a residence in a particular market. Also, at a rate of 1.62% is still one of the lowest tax RATES in the entire state. Try paying 2.3% or whatever the state average is, on these valuations, then I'd say whoa. But again, there are options: reverse mortgages, the senior freeze, etc.

Saradove wrote:Parkman, I'm with you. I have an 82 year old friend who, with his wife, bought a home in 1968, raised their kids & became a beloved neighbor to many. The house never had a major updating, it was their home with no thought to it becoming a goldmine. He doesn't want to sell ... it's his home, his neighborhood. A home is an emotional thing, sentimental, not always a money-maker as some see it. I realize that this doesn't mesh with today's reality but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

And he can't part with some of his unexpected millions via reverse mortgage to pay his taxes because....?

Saradove wrote:Parkman, I'm with you. I have an 82 year old friend who, with his wife, bought a home in 1968, raised their kids & became a beloved neighbor to many. The house never had a major updating, it was their home with no thought to it becoming a goldmine. He doesn't want to sell ... it's his home, his neighborhood. A home is an emotional thing, sentimental, not always a money-maker as some see it. I realize that this doesn't mesh with today's reality but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

And he can't part with some of his unexpected millions via reverse mortgage to pay his taxes because....?

thor800 wrote:The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Yes it was way overdue and definitely not fair for residents in other words to overpay for years, but also not fair to saddle downtown with absurdly high taxes with no clear plan to reassess more regularly in the future.

Parkman, I'm with you. I have an 82 year old friend who, with his wife, bought a home in 1968, raised their kids & became a beloved neighbor to many. The house never had a major updating, it was their home with no thought to it becoming a goldmine. He doesn't want to sell ... it's his home, his neighborhood. A home is an emotional thing, sentimental, not always a money-maker as some see it. I realize that this doesn't mesh with today's reality but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

thor800 wrote:The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop is “not a supporter” of a new bill introduced by three Hudson County legislators that would temporarily halt property revaluations so that residents have time to adjust to the “fiscal shock.”

By John Heinis/Hudson County View

Bill S-2566, introduced by state Senators Brian Stack (D-33), also the Union City Mayor, and Sandra Cunningham (D-31), would potentially take effect immediately and would allow municipalities to postpone applying reval results until January 2019 – as long as those results were not applied to tax bills before April of this year.

“This bill would delay the implementation of certain property tax revaluations to provide municipal governing bodies, the Division of Taxation, and the Legislature additional time to limit fiscal shock associated with implementing revaluations,” the bill description says.

Jersey City lawmakers in the state Legislature want to halt implementation of this year's property revaluation until 2019, citing the "fiscal shock" faced by property owners anticipating huge tax hikes.

The bill, (S-2566), would allow municipalities who did not apply reval results to tax bills before April 1 to postpone doing so until Jan. 1, 2019. The delay would allow for towns to provide "revaluation relief abatements" or "mitigate fiscal shock" from steep tax hikes. The bill was introduced last week.

Jersey City lawmakers in the state Legislature want to halt implementation of this year's property revaluation until 2019, citing the "fiscal shock" faced by property owners anticipating huge tax hikes.

The bill, (S-2566), would allow municipalities who did not apply reval results to tax bills before April 1 to postpone doing so until Jan. 1, 2019. The delay would allow for towns to provide "revaluation relief abatements" or "mitigate fiscal shock" from steep tax hikes. The bill was introduced last week.

Jersey City lawmakers in the state Legislature want to halt implementation of this year's property revaluation until 2019, citing the "fiscal shock" faced by property owners anticipating huge tax hikes.

The bill, (S-2566), would allow municipalities who did not apply reval results to tax bills before April 1 to postpone doing so until Jan. 1, 2019. The delay would allow for towns to provide "revaluation relief abatements" or "mitigate fiscal shock" from steep tax hikes. The bill was introduced last week.

landshark wrote:2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can’t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

Or, it just doesn't make sense.

The reval is done. Property tax changes are already getting rolled out. They won't roll everything back because of issues with vacant lots.

You seem to miss the point: lots of improved lots are seeing wildly different valuations, even when located immediately next to each other or within the same block. The point that some are making, including myself, is that assigning completely different values to the built upon lots opens the door for a legal challenge that could potentially delay, or stop, implementation of the reval results.

It's too late to stop the reval. It's over.

Also, think about what you're proposing:

1) The city loses in court and has to do the reval.2) They pay a company to do the reval3) They secretly order Appraisal Systems to use a formula that is completely screwy with land values, but the final values generally get within 15% of comp values for developed properties4) They hope that enough people notice the issue with vacant land that they sue the city not to adjust those vacant properties, but to force another reval (even though Appraisal Systems could just rerun the numbers with a new set of formulas)5) This happens months after the city has already published a lot of new valuations AND taken the heat from downtown residents AND seen property values in other parts of JC go up when taxes there go down AND discussed doing a follow-up reval in ~2 years.

Ever heard of Ockham's Razor? ;)

Quote:

How can the valuation company, or the city, justify that which defies logic or reason? That is, how can two lots (of similar size) in the same vicinity have totally different values?

I have no clue whatsoever. You'd have to ask Appraisal Systems. (201) 493-8530.

You keep bringing up empty lots, but I never brought those up, nor do I care about those in the least. As for the reval itself, I have always been for it (and have been open about that position for years now) and accurately predicted the overall results (massive increase in DT, some increases in JSQ, substantial decreases in BeLa and Greenville) but missed the mark on the final rate (originally, I had assumed/expected a rate of about 2%, and later something closer to 1.8%). I mention all of this to dispel any notion that I’m advocating against the reval, or the implementation of its results. It is precisely because I want to see the reval implemented that I worry (in the broad sense of the word) that they are botching some basic stuff. I don’t believe the city has engaged in some grand conspiracy to screw up the reval, but I do believe it is possible that there is little pressure to ensure the final step (implementation) is as clear and correct as possible, and that there are some powerful interests that would benefit from a further delay of the reval being implemented.

It simply doesn’t make sense for a professional appraisal company to come up with values out of thin air for a set of properties, and that the breakdown of those values (land and improvement) vary wildly between adjacent properties of similar lot size and conditions. This is the type of stuff that could be used for a legal challenge.

landshark wrote:2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can’t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

Or, it just doesn't make sense.

The reval is done. Property tax changes are already getting rolled out. They won't roll everything back because of issues with vacant lots.

You seem to miss the point: lots of improved lots are seeing wildly different valuations, even when located immediately next to each other or within the same block. The point that some are making, including myself, is that assigning completely different values to the built upon lots opens the door for a legal challenge that could potentially delay, or stop, implementation of the reval results.

It's too late to stop the reval. It's over.

Also, think about what you're proposing:

1) The city loses in court and has to do the reval.2) They pay a company to do the reval3) They secretly order Appraisal Systems to use a formula that is completely screwy with land values, but the final values generally get within 15% of comp values for developed properties4) They hope that enough people notice the issue with vacant land that they sue the city not to adjust those vacant properties, but to force another reval (even though Appraisal Systems could just rerun the numbers with a new set of formulas)5) This happens months after the city has already published a lot of new valuations AND taken the heat from downtown residents AND seen property values in other parts of JC go up when taxes there go down AND discussed doing a follow-up reval in ~2 years.

Ever heard of Ockham's Razor? ;)

Quote:

How can the valuation company, or the city, justify that which defies logic or reason? That is, how can two lots (of similar size) in the same vicinity have totally different values?

I have no clue whatsoever. You'd have to ask Appraisal Systems. (201) 493-8530.

landshark wrote:2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can’t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

Or, it just doesn't make sense.

The reval is done. Property tax changes are already getting rolled out. They won't roll everything back because of issues with vacant lots.

You seem to miss the point: lots of improved lots are seeing wildly different valuations, even when located immediately next to each other or within the same block. The point that some are making, including myself, is that assigning completely different values to the built upon lots opens the door for a legal challenge that could potentially delay, or stop, implementation of the reval results. How can the valuation company, or the city, justify that which defies logic or reason? That is, how can two lots (of similar size) in the same vicinity have totally different values?

landshark wrote:2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can’t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

Or, it just doesn't make sense.

The reval is done. Property tax changes are already getting rolled out. They won't roll everything back because of issues with vacant lots.

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can’t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

Intended or unintended, it seems like the administration is not motivated to do a good job of it. e.g. the city has not provided clear information on how to interpret the land + building values for condos in abated buildings. Figuring this out is my Saturday night activity.

landshark wrote:2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can’t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

landshark wrote:2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can’t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.